Hart insisted, correctly, that the term “redskins” was rarely used in history to abuse Native Americans.

Hart tried at first to be polite, saying, “Don, I’m on your side,” as he agreed with the concept–if people find something offensive, it should be considered. However, Hart said the “n-word” comparison was “not at all” fair.

by Sir John Hawkins

John Hawkins's book 101 Things All Young Adults Should Know is filled with lessons that newly minted adults need in order to get the most out of life. Gleaned from a lifetime of trial, error, and writing it down, Hawkins provides advice everyone can benefit from in short, digestible chapters.

Lemon said he wasn’t comparing the meaning of the words–only their similarity in “origin.” Host Tom Joyner joined in, stating, “you did compare the two.” Hart and Joyner did not let up on the CNN host, arguing the word “Redskins” has been a beloved team name “celebrated” in American culture for 70 years and was never used as a racial slur by the general public. The two insisted that comparing it to the “n-word” was unacceptable.

Well said. As a white person, I usually don’t feel comfortable chiming in on controversies like this. But the left is always looking for an opportunity to exploit the unique status of African-Americans–the only group that was kidnapped, brought here in chains and then systematically oppressed for centuries–by suggesting other slights and injustices, real or imagined, are “just as bad.” They’ve tried to turn “illegal” (as in illegal immigrant) into the “i-word.” They regularly compare anti-gay slights to Jim Crow, as if a baker declining to design your wedding cake is the same thing as being lynched for looking at a white woman, or having the police turn a vicious German shepherd on you for trying to vote. Now it’s “Redskins” that’s supposed to be the n-word, even though, as Hart said, it’s been embraced and celebrated as a team name, not used as a slur. As the saying goes: one of these things is not like the other.